On Jun 25, 10:32 pm, a...@pythoncraft.com (Aahz) wrote: > In article <mailman.2139.1245994218.8015.python-l...@python.org>, > Tom Reed <tomree...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >Why no trees in the standard library, if not as a built in? I searched > >the archive but couldn't find a relevant discussion. Seems like a > >glaring omission considering the batteries included philosophy, > >particularly balanced binary search trees. No interest, no good > >implementations, something other reason? Seems like a good fit for the > >collections module. Can anyone shed some light? > > What do you want such a tree for? Why are dicts and the bisect module > inadequate? Note that there are plenty of different tree implementations > available from either PyPI or the Cookbook. > -- > Aahz (a...@pythoncraft.com) <*> http://www.pythoncraft.com/ > > "as long as we like the same operating system, things are cool." --piranha
...And heapq is more-or-less an emulation of a tree structure in its underlying model. I once wrote a binary sorted tree data structure for Python in C. It performed anywhere from 15-40% worse than dicts. I think with optimization it will only perform 10% worse than dicts at best. Oh hey maybe that is why trees aren't an emphasized part of the standard. They are going to be much slower than the ultra-optimized dicts already in the standard lib. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list